Þat what woman were inL.12.81: The in was added in the left margin after initial copying, probably in response to the corrector's marginal <+>. auoutrie taken · were sheL.12.81: LHmMW and alpha have the feminine pronoun (he in R alone) which is omitted by the other beta witnesses. riche or pore
That what womman were in auoutrie taken were she riche or pore
That what woman were taken in auoutri , rich or pore
That what womman were in auoutrye taken . where sheW.12.81: WF read where she; HmLM read were sche (were he in R); other B manuscripts omit. W's where is either a unique spelling of were or the contracted form of whether: "whether she (were)." riche or poore
þat what womman were yn aduoutrye takyn · were sche ryche or pouere
That what womman were in auoutrie · taken riche other pouere
Þat what womman were in deuoutrieR.12.84:
R's form is unique here (beta and F attest auoutrie). But cf. KD 2.176,
where R's deuoutrie is accepted for alliterative reasons over the beta
reading, auoutrie. Since F agrees with R at this point, and since the same
base form shows as archetypal at C2.187 (deuoutours),
there seems no reason to doubt that it represents an example of contemporary usage.
MED, s. v.
devoutrie, and OED2, s. v.
devoutour, both cite only Piers Plowman, labelling the form
as a variation / corruption of auoutrie. taken
R's form for the third-person singular feminine pronoun here is the one commonly preferred by
this scribe and is, as usual, unique. F and beta agree on she.
riche or pore .
What womman was take in a-vowtery / where she ryche or pore.